We Do Not Anthropomorphize a Robot Based Only on Its Cover: Context Matters too!
Source abstract
Abstract
The increasing presence of robots in our society raises questions about how these objects are perceived by users. Individuals seem inclined to attribute human capabilities to robots, a phenomenon called anthropomorphism. Contrary to what intuition might suggest, these attributions vary according to different factors, not only robotic factors (related to the robot itself), but also situational factors (related to the interaction setting), and human factors (related to the user). The present review aims at synthesizing the results of the literature concerning the factors that influence anthropomorphism, in order to specify their impact on the perception of robots by individuals. A total of 134 experimental studies were included from 2002 to 2023. The mere appearance hypothesis and the SEEK (sociality, effectance, and elicited agent knowledge) theory are two theories attempting to explain anthropomorphism. According to the present review, which highlights the crucial role of contextual factors, the SEEK theory better explains the observations on the subject compared to the mere appearance hypothesis, although it does not explicitly explain all the factors involved (e.g., the autonomy of the robot). Moreover, the large methodological variability in the study of anthropomorphism makes the generalization of results complex. Recommendations are proposed for future studies.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Social Robot Interaction and HRI · AI in Service Interactions · Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
UFR de Psychologie, Université Paris 8 (Laboratoire Cognitions Humaine et Artificielle, RNSR 200515259U), 2 Rue de la Liberté, 93526 Saint-Denis, France
Association P-A-R-I-S, 25 Rue Henri Barbusse, 75005 Paris, France
UFR d’Éducation, CY Cergy Paris Université, 33 boulevard Port, 95000 Cergy-Pontoise, France
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Learning by teaching with humanoid robot: A new powerful experimental tool to improve children’s learning ability
2. Dubois-Sage, M., Jacquet, B., Jamet, F., and Baratgin, J. (2023, January 13–16). The mentor-child paradigm for individuals with autism spectrum disorders. Proceedings of the Workshop Social Robots Personalisation at the Crossroads between Engineering and Humanities (Concatenate) at the 18th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Stockholm, Sweden.
3. Pragmatics in the false-belief task: Let the robot ask the question!10.3389/fpsyg.2020.593807 ↗
4. Anthropomorphism and the social robot10.1016/S0921-8890(02)00374-3 ↗
5. On seeing human: A three-factor theory of anthropomorphism10.1037/0033-295X.114.4.864 ↗
6. Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots10.1007/s12369-008-0001-3 ↗
7. Center for the Study of Language and Information (1966). The Media Equation: How People Treat Computers, Television, and New Media Like Real People and Places, Cambridge University Press.
8. Individual differences in anthropomorphic attributions and human brain structure10.1093/scan/nst109 ↗
9. Dimensions of mind perception10.1126/science.1134475 ↗
10. “Social” robots are psychological agents for infants: A test of gaze following10.1016/j.neunet.2010.09.005 ↗
11. EEG theta and Mu oscillations during perception of human and robot actions10.3389/fnbot.2013.00019 ↗
12. De Graaf, M.M., and Malle, B.F. (2019, January 11–14). People’s explanations of robot behavior subtly reveal mental state inferences. Proceedings of the 2019 14th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Daegu, Republic of Korea.10.1109/HRI.2019.8673308 ↗
13. Fussell, S.R., Kiesler, S., Setlock, L.D., and Yew, V. (2008, January 12–15). How people anthropomorphize robots. Proceedings of the 3rd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction, Amsterdam, The The Netherlands. HRI ’08.10.1145/1349822.1349842 ↗
14. Ranjbartabar, H., and Richards, D. (2018, January 5–8). Should we use human-human factors for validating human-agent relationships? A look at rapport. Proceedings of the Workshop on Methodology and the Evaluation of Intelligent Virtual Agents (ME-IVA) at the Intelligent Virtual Agent Conference (IVA2018), Sydney, NSW, Australia.
15. Goel, A.K., Seifert, C.M., and Freksa, C. (2019, January 24–27). The intentional stance toward robots: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Montreal, QC, Canada. Proceedings of the CogSci’19.
16. Thellman, S., Giagtzidou, A., Silvervarg, A., and Ziemke, T. (2020, January 23–26). An implicit, non-verbal measure of belief attribution to robots. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, New York, NY, USA.10.1145/3371382.3378346 ↗
17. Mental State Attribution to Robots: A Systematic Review of Conceptions, Methods, and Findings10.1145/3526112 ↗
18. Guthrie, S.E. (1995). Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion, Oxford University Press.
19. Anthropomorphism as Cognitive Bias10.1086/694039 ↗
20. Implicit measures of anthropomorphism: Affective priming and recognition of apparent animal emotions10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1149444 ↗
21. Anthropomorphism and mechanomorphism: Two faces of the human machine10.1016/0747-5632(86)90004-X ↗
22. Generalisation of anthropomorphic stereotype10.1007/s12369-019-00549-4 ↗
23. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristic and biases10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 ↗
24. Model of Dual Anthropomorphism: The Relationship Between the Media Equation Effect and Implicit Anthropomorphism10.1007/s12369-018-0476-5 ↗
25. The Development of Anthropomorphism in Interaction: Intersubjectivity, Imagination, and Theory of Mind10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02136 ↗
26. Spontaneous perspective taking toward robots: The unique impact of humanlike appearance10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105076 ↗
27. Seeing more than human: Autism and anthropomorphic theory of mind10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00528 ↗
28. Chaminade, T., Franklin, D., Oztop, E., and Cheng, G. (August, January 31). Motor interference between Humans and Humanoid Robots: Effect of Biological and Artificial Motion. Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Development and Learning, Hong Kong, China.
29. Chaminade, T., Zecca, M., Blakemore, S.J., Takanishi, A., Frith, C., Micera, S., Dario, P., Rizzolatti, G., Gallese, V., and Umiltà, M. (2010). Brain response to a humanoid robot in areas implicated in the perception of human emotional gestures. PLoS ONE, 5.10.1371/journal.pone.0011577 ↗
30. The cultural evolution of mind reading10.1126/science.1243091 ↗
31. Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science10.1126/science.3629243 ↗
32. Zhao, X., Cusimano, C., and Malle, B. (2016, January 7–10). Do people spontaneously take a robot’s visual perspective?. Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451770 ↗
33. Paepcke, S., and Takayama, L. (2010, January 2–5). Judging a bot by its cover: An experiment on expectation setting for personal robots. Proceedings of the 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Osaka, Japan.10.1109/HRI.2010.5453268 ↗
34. Theory of mind in social robots: Replication of five established human tests10.1007/s12369-019-00588-x ↗
35. An Experimental Study of Apparent Behavior10.2307/1416950 ↗
36. Persistence of the uncanny valley: The influence of repeated interactions and a robot’s attitude on its perception10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00883 ↗
37. The minds of machines: Children’s beliefs about the experiences, thoughts, and morals of familiar interactive technologies10.1037/dev0001524 ↗
38. L’interaction homme-robot, de l’anthropomorphisme à l’humanisation10.3917/anpsy1.194.0515 ↗
39. Does Long-Term Exposure to Robots Affect Mind Perception? An Exploratory Study10.1177/1071181320641438 ↗
40. You, robot? The role of anthropomorphic emotion attributions in children’s sharing with a robot
41. Barsante, L.S., Paixão, K.S., Laass, K.H., Cardoso, R.T.N., Eiras, Ã.E., and Acebal, J.L. (2014). A model to predict the population size of the dengue fever vector based on rainfall data. arXiv.
42. Causes and consequences of mind perception10.1016/j.tics.2010.05.006 ↗
43. Making sense by making sentient: Effectance motivation increases anthropomorphism10.1037/a0020240 ↗
44. Who sees human? The stability and importance of individual differences in anthropomorphism10.1177/1745691610369336 ↗
45. The personality of anthropomorphism: How the need for cognition and the need for closure define attitudes and anthropomorphic attributions toward robots10.1016/j.chb.2021.106841 ↗
46. Reminders of Social Connection Can Attenuate Anthropomorphism: A Replication and Extension of Epley, Akalis, Waytz, and Cacioppo (2008)10.1177/0956797616668510 ↗
47. Are physically embodied social agents better than disembodied social agents?: The effects of physical embodiment, tactile interaction, and people’s loneliness in human-robot interaction10.1016/j.ijhcs.2006.05.002 ↗
48. Jung, Y., and Hahn, S. (2023). Social Robots as Companions for Lonely Hearts: The Role of Anthropomorphism and Robot Appearances. arXiv.10.1109/RO-MAN57019.2023.10309617 ↗
49. Smartphones as social actors? Social dispositional factors in assessing anthropomorphism10.1016/j.chb.2016.11.022 ↗
50. Does the chimpanzee have a theory of mind?10.1017/S0140525X00076512 ↗
51. Exploring the relationship between anthropomorphism and theory-of-mind in brain and behavior10.1002/hbm.25542 ↗
52. Anthropomorphism, social understanding, and imaginary companions10.1111/bjdp.12272 ↗
53. Theory of mind and humanoid robots from a lifespan perspective
54. Theory of mind in context: Mental-state representations for social evaluation10.1017/S0140525X20001818 ↗
55. From automata to animate beings: The scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents10.1111/nyas.13727 ↗
56. Are there theory of mind regions in the brain? A review of the neuroimaging literature10.1002/hbm.20671 ↗
57. Fractionating theory of mind: A meta-analysis of functional brain imaging studies10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.009 ↗
58. Specifying the brain anatomy underlying temporo-parietal junction activations for theory of mind: A review using probabilistic atlases from different imaging modalities10.1002/hbm.23675 ↗
59. The neural basis of understanding the expression of the emotions in man and animals10.1093/scan/nsw161 ↗
60. Anthropomorphism influences perception of computer-animated characters’ actions10.1093/scan/nsm017 ↗
61. Implications of robot actions for human perception. How do we represent actions of the observed Rrobots?10.1007/s12369-014-0239-x ↗
62. Kühn, S., Brick, T.R., Müller, B.C.N., and Gallinat, J. (2014). Is This Car Looking at You? How Anthropomorphism Predicts Fusiform Face Area Activation when Seeing Cars. PLoS ONE, 9.10.1371/journal.pone.0113885 ↗
63. What do theory-of-mind tasks actually measure? Theory and practice10.1177/1745691619896607 ↗
64. Perceived human-likeness of social robots: Testing the Rasch model as a method for measuring anthropomorphism10.1007/s12369-019-00516-z ↗
65. Saving the robot or the human? Robots who feel deserve moral care10.1521/soco.2019.37.1.41 ↗
66. A review of the applicability of robots in education10.2316/Journal.209.2013.1.209-0015 ↗
67. Barco, A., de Jong, C., Peter, J., Kühne, R., and van Straten, C.L. (2020, January 23–26). Robot Morphology and Children’s Perception of Social Robots: An Exploratory Study. Proceedings of the Companion of the 2020 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Cambridge, UK. HRI ’20.10.1145/3371382.3378348 ↗
68. Broadbent, E., Kumar, V., Li, X., Sollers, J., Stafford, R., Macdonald, B., and Wegner, D. (2013). Robots with display screens: A Robot with a more humanlike face display is perceived to have more mind and a better personality. PLoS ONE, 8.10.1371/journal.pone.0072589 ↗
69. British children’s and adults’ perceptions of robots10.1155/2022/3813820 ↗
70. Carpinella, C.M., Wyman, A.B., Perez, M.A., and Stroessner, S.J. (2017, January 6–9). The Robotic Social Attributes Scale (RoSAS): Development and Validation. Proceedings of the 2017 ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Vienna, Austria. HRI ’17.10.1145/2909824.3020208 ↗
71. All robots are not created equal: The design and perception of humanoid robot heads
72. Preschoolers’ anthropomorphizing of robots: Do human-like properties matter?10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1102370 ↗
73. Haring, K.S., Silvera-Tawil, D., Takahashi, T., Watanabe, K., and Velonaki, M. (2016, January 3–6). How people perceive different robot types: A direct comparison of an android, humanoid, and non-biomimetic robot. Proceedings of the 2016 8th International Conference on Knowledge and Smart Technology (KST), Chiangmai, Thailand.10.1109/KST.2016.7440504 ↗
74. Anthropomorphic interactions with a robot and robot-like agent10.1521/soco.2008.26.2.169 ↗
75. Krach, S., Hegel, F., Wrede, B., Sagerer, G., Binkofski, F., and Kircher, T. (2008). Can machines think? Interaction and perspective taking with robots investigated via fMRI. PLoS ONE, 3.10.1371/journal.pone.0002597 ↗
76. Malle, B.F., Scheutz, M., Forlizzi, J., and Voiklis, J. (2016, January 7–10). Which robot am I thinking about? The impact of action and appearance on people’s evaluations of a moral robot. Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451743 ↗
77. A robot is not worth another: Exploring children’s mental state attribution to different humanoid robots10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02011 ↗
78. Robots Are Not All the Same: Young Adults’ Expectations, Attitudes, and Mental Attribution to Two Humanoid Social Robots10.1089/cyber.2020.0162 ↗
79. Impact of anthropomorphic robot design on trust and attention in industrial human-robot interaction10.1145/3472224 ↗
80. The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes
81. Riek, L.D., Rabinowitch, T.C., Chakrabarti, B., and Robinson, P. (2009, January 9–13). How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots. Proceedings of the 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human Robot Interaction—HRI’09, La Jolla, CA, USA.10.1145/1514095.1514158 ↗
82. Sacino, A., Cocchella, F., De Vita, G., Bracco, F., Rea, F., Sciutti, A., and Andrighetto, L. (2022). Human- or object-like? Cognitive anthropomorphism of humanoid robots. PLoS ONE, 17.10.1371/journal.pone.0270787 ↗
83. Children’s perceptions of the moral worth of live agents, robots, and inanimate objects10.1016/j.jecp.2019.06.009 ↗
84. Child perception of humanoid robot appearance and behavior10.1080/10447318.2016.1172808 ↗
85. Zanatto, D., Patacchiola, M., Goslin, J., and Cangelosi, A. (2016, January 7–10). Priming anthropomorphism: Can the credibility of humanlike robots be transferred to non-humanlike robots?. Proceedings of the 2016 11th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Christchurch, New Zealand.10.1109/HRI.2016.7451847 ↗
86. Baxter, P., Ashurst, E., Read, R., Kennedy, J., and Belpaeme, T. (2017). Robot education peers in a situated primary school study: Personalisation promotes child learning. PLoS ONE, 12.10.1371/journal.pone.0178126 ↗
87. Boladeras, M., Nuño, N., Saez-Pons, J., Pardo, D., and Angulo, C. (2011, January 21–23). Building up child-robot relationship for therapeutic purposes: From initial attraction towards long-term social engagement. Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE International Conference on Automatic Face & Gesture Recognition (FG), Santa Barbara, CA, USA.
88. Young children treat robots as informants10.1111/tops.12192 ↗
89. Design and evaluation of a personal robot playing a self-management education game with children with diabetes type 110.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.06.001 ↗
90. Horstmann, A.C., and Krämer, N.C. (2020). Expectations vs. actual behavior of a social robot: An experimental investigation of the effects of a social robot’s interaction skill level and its expected future role on people’s evaluations. PLoS ONE, 15.10.1371/journal.pone.0238133 ↗
91. Huang, C.M., and Thomaz, A.L. (2010, January 11–13). Joint attention in human-robot interaction. Proceedings of the 2010 AAAI Fall Symposium Series, Arlington, WV, USA.
92. Kanda, T., Shimada, M., and Koizumi, S. (2012, January 5–8). Children learning with a social robot. Proceedings of the Seventh Annual ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction, Boston, MA, USA. Proceedings of the HRI ’12.10.1145/2157689.2157809 ↗
93. Tapus, A., André, E., Martin, J.C., Ferland, F., and Ammi, M. (2015). Proceedings of the Social Robotics, Springer International Publishing.10.1007/978-3-319-25554-5 ↗
94. Politeness in Human-Robot Interaction: A Multi-Experiment Study with Non-Humanoid Robots10.1007/s12369-022-00911-z ↗
95. Effects of robot gaze and voice human-likeness on users’ subjective perception, visual attention, and cerebral activity in voice conversations10.1016/j.chb.2022.107645 ↗
96. Specifying and testing the design rationale of social robots for behavior change in children10.1016/j.cogsys.2016.07.002 ↗
97. The understanding of congruent and incongruent referential gaze in 17-month-old infants: An eye-tracking study comparing human and robot10.1038/s41598-020-69140-6 ↗
98. Nitsch, V., and Glassen, T. (September, January 31). Investigating the effects of robot behavior and attitude towards technology on social human-robot interactions. Proceedings of the 2015 24th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), Kobe, Japan.10.1109/ROMAN.2015.7333560 ↗
99. Obaid, M., Sandoval, E., Złotowski, J., Moltchanova, E., Basedow, C., and Bartneck, C. (2016, January 26–31). Stop! That is close enough. How body postures influence human-robot proximity. Proceedings of the 2016 25th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (RO-MAN), New York, NY, USA.10.1109/ROMAN.2016.7745155 ↗
100. A robot is watching me!: Five-year-old children care about their reputation after interaction with a social robot10.1111/cdev.13903 ↗