Understanding Anthropomorphism: Anthropomorphism is not a Reverse Process of Dehumanization
Anthropomorphism plays an important role in human interaction with robots. However, our understanding of this phenomenon is still limited. In the previous research, we proposed to look at the work on dehumanization in order to understand what factors can affect a robot’s anthropomorphism. Moreover, considering that there are two distinct dimensions of humanness, a two-dimensional model of anthropomorphism was proposed. In this paper we present a study in which we manipulated the perceived intentionality of a robot and appearance (Robovie R2 vs Geminoid HI-2), and measured how they affected the anthropomorphization of the robots on two dimensions of humanness. We did not find statistically significant differences in attribution of human traits and mind along two dimensions of humanness. However, after dividing the traits based on their valence, we found that Geminoid HI-2 was attributed significantly more negative human traits than Robovie R2. These results do not support the proposed two-dimensional model of anthropomorphism.
KeywordsAnthropomorphism Dehumanization Human-Robot Interaction Moral agency
The authors would like to thank Kaiko Kuwamura, Daisuke Nakamichi, Junya Nakanishi, Masataka Okubo and Kurima Sakai for their help with data collection. 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 and ISHIGURO symbiotic Human-Robot Interaction Project.
- 2.Eyssel, F., Hegel, F., Horstmann, G., Wagner, C.: Anthropomorphic inferences from emotional nonverbal cues: a case study. In: Proceedings - IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, Viareggio, Italy, pp. 646–651 (2010)Google Scholar
- 3.Fischer, K., Lohan, K.S., Foth, K.: Levels of embodiment: linguistic analyses of factors influencing HRI. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2012), pp. 463–470 (2012)Google Scholar
- 10.Kahn Jr., P.H., Kanda, T., Ishiguro, H., Gill, B.T., Ruckert, J.H., Shen, S., Gary, H.E., Reichert, A.L., Freier, N.G., Severson, R.L.: Do people hold a humanoid robot morally accountable for the harm it causes? In: Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 33–40. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
- 11.Kamide, H., Eyssel, F., Arai, T.: Psychological anthropomorphism of robots: measuring mind perception and humanity in Japanese context. In: Herrmann, G., Pearson, M.J., Lenz, A., Bremner, P., Spiers, A., Leonards, U. (eds.) ICSR 2013. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 8239, pp. 199–208. Springer, Cham (2013). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-02675-6_20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Salem, M., Eyssel, F., Rohlfing, K., Kopp, S., Joublin, F.: 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.) ICSR 2011. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 7072, pp. 31–41. Springer, Heidelberg (2011). doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-25504-5_4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Short, E., Hart, J., Vu, M., Scassellati, B.: No fair!! an interaction with a cheating robot. In: 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, HRI 2010, Osaka, Japan, pp. 219–226 (2010)Google Scholar
- 14.Sims, V.K., Chin, M.G., Lum, H.C., Upham-Ellis, L., Ballion, T., Lagattuta, N.C.: Robots’ auditory cues are subject to anthropomorphism. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, vol. 3, pp. 1418–1421 (2009)Google Scholar
- 15.Wang, E., Lignos, C., Vatsal, A., Scassellati, B.: Effects of head movement on perceptions of humanold robot behavior. In: Proceedings of the 2006 ACM Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI 2006), vol. 2006, pp. 180–185 (2006)Google Scholar
- 16.Złotowski, J., Strasser, E., Bartneck, C.: Dimensions of anthropomorphism: from humanness to humanlikeness. In: Proceedings of the 2014 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, pp. 66–73. ACM (2014)Google Scholar