Anthropomorphism of Robots: Study of Appearance and Agency

Abstract

Background As the prevalence of robots increases each year, understanding how we anthropomorphize and interact with them is extremely important. The three-factor theory of anthropomorphism, called the Sociality, Effectance, Elicited agent Knowledge model, guided this study. As anthropomorphism involves a person making attributions of human likeness toward a nonhuman object, this model implies that anthropomorphism can be influenced either by factors related to the person or the object. Objective The aim of this study was to explore factors influencing the anthropomorphism of robots, specifically the robot’s appearance (humanoid vs nonhumanoid) and agency (autonomous vs nonautonomous). We expected a humanoid robot would be anthropomorphized to a greater extent than one that was nonhumanoid. In addition, we expected that inducing an agency belief to the effect that a robot was making its own decisions would increase anthropomorphism compared with a nonagency belief that the robot was being remotely controlled by a human. We also sought to identify any role gender might play in anthropomorphizing the robot. Methods Participants (N=99) were primed for agency or nonagency belief conditions and then saw a brief video depicting either a humanoid or nonhumanoid robot interacting with a confederate. After viewing the video, they completed 4 measures: perception to humanoid robots scale (PERNOD), the Epley anthropomorphic adjectives measure, the Fussel anthropomorphic adjective checklist, and the Anthropomorphic Tendencies Scale (ATS). Results Findings with the PERNOD scale indicated subjects did perceive the 2 robots differently, F 6,86 =6.59, P <.001, which means the appearance manipulation was effective. Results with the Epley adjectives indicated that participants were more willing to attribute humanlike behavioral traits to the nonhumanoid rather than the humanoid robot, F 1,91 =5.76, P =.02. The Fussel adjective checklist results showed that subjects were more willing to attribute humanlike social qualities to the remote controlled than the autonomous robot, F 1,91 =5.30, P =.02. Finally, the ATS revealed the only gender effects in this study, with females reporting more endorsement of anthropomorphism for pets ( P =.02) and less for showing negative emotions toward anthropomorphized objects ( P <.001) if they had witnessed the humanoid rather than the nonhumanoid robot. Conclusions Contrary to our expectations, participants were less willing to make humanlike attributions toward a robot when its morphology was more humanlike and were more willing to make those attributions when they were told that the robot was being remotely con...

Do Men Have No Need for “Feminist” Artificial Intelligence? Agentic and Gendered Voice Assistants in the Light of Basic Psychological Needs

“…As studies suggest, agency can influence the perception of a non-human agent ( Appel et al, 2020 ; Brink and Wellman, 2020 ; Zafari and Koeszegi, 2020 ). In Human–Robot Interaction research, agency has been linked to increased anthropomorphism (the tendency to infer human-like traits to non-human entities; Nowak and Biocca, 2003 ; Epley et al, 2008 ; Crowell et al, 2019 ). Just as individual differences occur in the perception of anthropomorphism ( Epley et al, 2008 ), agency perception and subsequently agency preferences for non-human agents vary due to individual differences ( Stafford et al, 2014 ; Brink and Wellman, 2020 ).…”

“Hit the Robot on the Head With This Mallet” – Making a Case for Including More Open Questions in HRI Research

“…that the perception of a robot as having qualities of a 'living' agent (e.g., intentions, emotions, and the ability to feel hurt) is sensitive to numerous factors including (but not limited to) the appearance of the robot (e.g., humanoid vs non-humanoid), the robot's behavior (e.g., congruent vs incongruent gesture and speech), and the beliefs of the participant about the origin of the behavior (e.g., an algorithm vs human-controlled) (Salem et al, 2013;Wykowska et al, 2015;Crowell et al, 2019). If robots were perceived in a stable manner across people we could use existing models of attachment (Ball and Tasaki, 1992;Mugge et al, 2005) to predict the trajectory of robot uptake and usage, however the studies and insights outlined previously suggest that such fixed attitudes are not yet a reality.…”

Perceived robotic server qualities and functions explaining customer loyalty in the theme park context

“…They compared consumer interaction with a dog-shaped pet-robot and a humanoid robot and concluded that the participants' simple commands to either robot depended on their personal preference rather than the robot's appearance. Crowell et al (2019) explored the factors affecting the anthropomorphism of robots, specifically the robot's appearance (humanoid vs non-humanoid) and agency (autonomous vs non-autonomous). They concluded that participants were less willing to attribute a robot to humans when it appeared like a human, while they were more willing to attribute a robot to humans when they were informed that the robot was remotely controlled.…”