Blurring Human–Machine Distinctions: Anthropomorphic Appearance in Social Robots as a Threat to Human Distinctiveness

Ferrari, Francesco; Paladino, Maria Paola; Jetten, Jolanda

doi:10.1007/s12369-016-0338-y

Cited by 221 publications

(115 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Current literature emphasizes how highly human-like robots can be perceived as menacing by users, especially when they appear able to perform better than humans (Yogeeswaran et al, 2016) and display autonomy (Złotowski et al, 2017). According to the “threat to distinctiveness hypothesis” advanced by Ferrari et al (2016), the increasing blur of boundaries between robots and humans destabilizes the perception of “human uniqueness,” and tends to generate growing concern on the negative impacts of this technology (Ferrari et al, 2016). …”

Section: Social Robotics As Applied Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Social robotics entertains a particular relationship with anthropomorphism, which it neither sees as a cognitive error, nor as a sign of immaturity. Rather it considers that this common human tendency, which is hypothesized to have evolved because it favored cooperation among early humans, can be used today to facilitate social interactions between humans and a new type of cooperative and interactive agents – social robots. This approach leads social robotics to focus research on the engineering of robots that activate anthropomorphic projections in users. The objective is to give robots “social presence” and “social behaviors” that are sufficiently credible for human users to engage in comfortable and potentially long-lasting relations with these machines. This choice of ‘applied anthropomorphism’ as a research methodology exposes the artifacts produced by social robotics to ethical condemnation: social robots are judged to be a “cheating” technology, as they generate in users the illusion of reciprocal social and affective relations. This article takes position in this debate, not only developing a series of arguments relevant to philosophy of mind, cognitive sciences, and robotic AI, but also asking what social robotics can teach us about anthropomorphism. On this basis, we propose a theoretical perspective that characterizes anthropomorphism as a basic mechanism of interaction, and rebuts the ethical reflections that a priori condemns “anthropomorphism-based” social robots. To address the relevant ethical issues, we promote a critical experimentally based ethical approach to social robotics, “synthetic ethics,” which aims at allowing humans to use social robots for two main goals: self-knowledge and moral growth.

show abstract

Section: Social Robotics As Applied Anthropomorphismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, an increase in the human‐likeness of the artificial agent might increase the potential for biases or stereotypes to enter the socialness equation. Another influence on socialness attribution comes from the perspective put forward by Ferrari et al . These authors suggest that artificial agents’ threat to distinctiveness also has the potential to influence socialness attribution and social behavior toward artificial agents.…”

Section: Impact Of Knowledge Cues the Human Observermentioning

confidence: 99%

From automata to animate beings: the scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents

Hortensius

Cross

2018

Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Understanding the mechanisms and consequences of attributing socialness to artificial agents has important implications for how we can use technology to lead more productive and fulfilling lives. Here, we integrate recent findings on the factors that shape behavioral and brain mechanisms that support social interactions between humans and artificial agents. We review how visual features of an agent, as well as knowledge factors within the human observer, shape attributions across dimensions of socialness. We explore how anthropomorphism and dehumanization further influence how we perceive and interact with artificial agents. Based on these findings, we argue that the cognitive reconstruction within the human observer is likely to be far more crucial in shaping our interactions with artificial agents than previously thought, while the artificial agent's visual features are possibly of lesser importance. We combine these findings to provide an integrative theoretical account based on the "like me" hypothesis, and discuss the key role played by the Theory-of-Mind network, especially the temporal parietal junction, in the shift from mechanistic to social attributions. We conclude by highlighting outstanding questions on the impact of long-term interactions with artificial agents on the behavioral and brain mechanisms of attributing socialness to these agents.

show abstract

“…Considering robots as a social category means that they also could be considered a threat to our humanness. The threat to distinctiveness hypothesis (Ferrari, Paladino, & Jetten, ) proposes that human‐like robots cause unease in humans due to robots' perceived threat to the distinctiveness and uniqueness of humankind. As robots become more similar to us, they blur the boundaries between human and machine; they therefore threaten what it means to be human.…”

Section: Robots As a Threatmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Can robots be designed to mitigate the negative effects of perceived autonomy and more human‐like qualities? Robots that are perceived as autonomous and possessing sentience are also seen as more threatening (Ferrari et al, ; Złotowski et al, ). Although some researchers have discussed the benefits of purposely making social robots look less human (e.g., Ferrari et al, ), it is clear from the research reviewed here that it is not necessary for robots to look like humans in order to elicit strong emotions, either positive or negative, in their human counterparts.…”

Section: Human–robot Interaction and Intergroup Relationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“Danger, Will Robinson!” The challenges of social robots for intergroup relations

Vanman

Kappas

2019

Social & Personality Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Society's increasing reliance on robots in everyday life provides exciting opportunities for social psychologists to work with engineers in the nascent field of social robotics. In contrast to industrial robots that, for example, may be used on an assembly line, social robots are designed specifically to interact with humans and/or other robots. People tend to perceive social robots as autonomous and capable of having a mind. As such, they are also more likely to be subject to social categorization by humans. As social robots become more human like, people may also feel greater empathy for them and treat robots more like (human) ingroup members. On the other hand, as they become more human like, robots also challenge our human distinctiveness, threaten our identity, and elicit suspicion about their ability to deceive us with their human‐like qualities. We review relevant research to explore this apparent paradox, particularly from an intergroup relations perspective. We discuss these findings and propose three research questions that we believe social psychologists are ideally suited to address.

show abstract

Blurring Human–Machine Distinctions: Anthropomorphic Appearance in Social Robots as a Threat to Human Distinctiveness

Cited by 221 publications

References 49 publications

Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

Anthropomorphism in Human–Robot Co-evolution

From automata to animate beings: the scope and limits of attributing socialness to artificial agents

“Danger, Will Robinson!” The challenges of social robots for intergroup relations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About