Advertisement

Shape It – The Influence of Robot Body Shape on Gender Perception in Robots

  • Jasmin Bernotat
  • Friederike Eyssel
  • Janik Sachse
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10652)

Abstract

Previous research has shown that gender-related stereotypes are even applied to robots. In HRI, a robot’s appearance, for instance, visual facial gender cues such as hairstyle of a robot have successfully been used to elicit gender-stereotypical judgments about male and female prototypes, respectively. To complement the set of features to visually indicate a robot’s gender, we explored the impact of waist-to-hip ratio (WHR) and shoulder width (SW) in robot prototypes. Specifically, we investigated the effect of male vs. female appearance on perceived robot gender, the attribution of gender stereotypical traits, the robots’ suitability for stereotypical tasks, and participants’ trust toward the robots. Our results have demonstrated that the manipulation of WHR and SW correctly elicited gendered perceptions of the two prototypes. However, the perception of male robot gender did not affect the attribution of agentic traits and cognitive trust. Nevertheless, participants tended to rate the male robot as more suitable for stereotypically male tasks. In line with our predictions, participants preferred to use the female robot shape for stereotypically female tasks. They tended to attribute more communal traits and showed more affective trust toward the robot that was designed with a female torso versus a male robot torso. These results demonstrate that robot body shape activates stereotypes toward robots. These in turn, deeply impact people’s attitudes and trust toward robots which determine people’s motivation to engage in HRI.

Keywords

Robot body shape Gender Gender stereotypes Cognitive and affective trust in HRI 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research has been conducted in the framework of the European Project CODEFROR (FP7 PIRSES-2013-612555) and was supported by the Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology ‘CITEC’ (EXC 277) at Bielefeld University, which is funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG). We report all data exclusions, all manipulations, and all measures in the study.

References

  1. 1.
    Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., Glick, P.: Universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth and competence. Trends Cogn. Sci. 11(2), 77–83 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Eyssel, F., Hegel, F.: (S)he’s got the look: gender stereotyping of robots. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 42(9), 2213–2230 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnson, K.L., Tassinary, T.L.: Perceiving sex directly and indirectly: meaning in motion and morphology. Psychol. Sci. 16(11), 890–897 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lippa, R.: Sex typing and the perception of body outlines. J. Pers. 51(4), 667–682 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bem, D.L., Allen, A.: On predicting some of the people some of the time: the search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychol. Rev. 81(6), 506 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Schneider-Düker, S., Kohler, A.: Die Erfassung von Geschlechtsrollen: Ergebnisse zur deutschen Neukonstruktion des Bem Sex-Role Inventory [Assessment of gender roles: German version of Bem sex-role inventory]. Diagnostica 34, 256–270 (1988)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J., Glick, P., Xu, J.: A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82(6), 878–902 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Johnson, D., Grayson, K.: Cognitive and affective trust in service relationships. J. Bus. Res. 58(4), 500–507 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lewis, J.D., Weigert, A.: Trust as a social reality. Soc. Forces 63(4), 967–985 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Waytz, A., Heafner, J., Epley, N.: The mind in the machine: anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle. J. Exp. Soc. Psy. 52, 113–117 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hancock, P.A., Billings, D.R., Schaefer, K.E., Chen, J., de Visser, E., Parasuraman, R.: A meta-analysis of factors affecting trust in human-robot interaction. Hum. Fact. J. Hum. Fact. Ergon. Soc. 53(5), 517–527 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaefer, K.: The perception and measurement of human-robot trust. Dissertation (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Neyer, F., Felber, J., Gebhardt, C.: Entwicklung und Validierung einer Kurzskala zur Erfassung von Technikbereitschaft [Technology commitment]. Diagnostica 58, 87–99 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Waytz, A., Cacioppo, J., Epley, N.: Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 5(3), 219–232 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stöber, J.: The Social Desirability Scale-17 (SDS-17): convergent validity, discriminant validity, and relationship with age. Eur. J. Psychol. Assess. 17(3), 222 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rollero, C., Glick, P.: Tartaglia: psychometric properties of short versions of the ambivalent sexism inventory and ambivalence toward men inventory. TPM Test. Psychom. Methodol. Appl. Psychol. 21(2), 149–159 (2014)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Devine, P.G.: Automatic and controlled processes in prejudice: The role of stereotypes and personal beliefs. In: Pratkanis, A.R., Breckler, S.J., Greenwald, A.G. (eds.) Attitude Structure and Function: The Third Ohio State University Volume on Attitudes and Persuasion, pp. 181–212. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jasmin Bernotat
    • 1
  • Friederike Eyssel
    • 1
  • Janik Sachse
    • 1
  1. 1.Cluster of Excellence Cognitive Interaction Technology (CITEC)Bielefeld UniversityBielefeldGermany

Personalised recommendations