Lay Causal Explanations of Human vs. Humanoid Behavior

  • Sam ThellmanEmail author
  • Annika Silvervarg
  • Tom Ziemke
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10498)


The present study used a questionnaire-based method for investigating people’s interpretations of behavior exhibited by a person and a humanoid robot, respectively. Participants were given images and verbal descriptions of different behaviors and were asked to judge the plausibility of seven causal explanation types. Results indicate that human and robot behavior are explained similarly, but with some significant differences, and with less agreement in the robot case.


Human-robot interaction Attribution Behavior explanation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Sciutti, A., Ansuini, C., Becchio, C., Sandini, G.: Investigating the ability to read others’ intentions using humanoid robots. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 1362 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wykowska, A., Chaminade, T., Cheng, G.: Embodied artificial agents for understanding human social cognition. Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B 371(1693), 20150375 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dennett, D.C.: Intentional systems. The Journal of Philosophy 68(4), 87–106 (1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Heider, F.: The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations. Martino Publishing, Mansfield Center, CT (1958)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Böhm, G., Pfister, H.R.: How people explain their own and others’ behavior: a theory of lay causal explanations. Frontiers in Psychology 6, 139 (2015)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Mezulis, A.H., Abramson, L.Y., Hyde, J.S., Hankin, B.L.: Is there a universal positivity bias in attributions? A meta-analytic review of individual, developmental, and cultural differences in the self-serving attributional bias. Psychological Bulletin 130(5), 711 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Malle, B.F., Knobe, J.: The folk concept of intentionality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 33(2), 101–121 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Computer and Information ScienceLinköping UniversityLinköpingSweden

Personalised recommendations