How Deeply Do We Include Robotic Agents in the Self?

Stenzel, Anna; Chinellato, Eris; Pobil, Ángel P. del; Lappe, Markus; Liepelt, Roman

doi:10.1142/s0219843613500151

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the joint Simon task, we replicated the joint Simon effect with a robotic co-actor, concurrent with previous studies (Stenzel et al, 2012; Stenzel et al, 2013; Wen and Hsieh, 2015; Bunlon et al, 2018). Contrary to expectations, the size of the joint Simon effect was not affected by our manipulation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…The congruency effect in this paradigm is called the ‘joint Simon effect.’ Importantly for our purposes, the joint Simon effect was also obtained in a study where a human participant worked side-by-side with a robot (Stenzel et al, 2012), and the effect was larger when participants were either told that the robot was programmed in a “biologically inspired, autonomous way” than when they were told that it was programmed in a “purely deterministic way.” Another recent study found a joint Simon effect in virtual reality both when the co-actor was a human hand and when it was a robotic hand (Bunlon et al, 2018). Stenzel et al (2013) similarly found a joint Simon effect for a robotic co-actor, but failed to find a relationship between the size of the effect and explicit self-other inclusion, as measured by asking participants which of six images ranging from widely separated to highly overlapping circles best described the relation between the participant and the robot (the Inclusion of the Other in the Self scale, IOS). The latter is striking from the point of view of the feature overlap hypothesis, though it might be accounted for by the fact that there was no manipulation of self-other similarity.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Impact of Human–Robot Synchronization on Anthropomorphization

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To elucidate the working mechanism behind anthropomorphism, this study investigated whether human participants would anthropomorphize a robot more if they move synchronously versus non-synchronously with it, and whether this is affected by which of the two initiates the movements. We tested two competing hypotheses. The feature-overlap hypothesis predicts that moving in synchrony would increase perceived self-other feature overlap, which in turn might spread activation to codes of features related to humans—which should increase anthropomorphization. In contrast, the autonomy hypothesis predicts that unpredictability increases anthropomorphization, and thus that whenever the robot initiates movements, or when the human initiates movements to which the robot moves non-synchronously, there is an increased perception of the robot as a more human-like, intentionally acting creature, which in turn should increase anthropomorphization. We performed a study with synchrony as within-subjects factor, and initiator (robot or human) as between-subjects factor. To study the impact of synchrony on self-other overlap and perception of human likeness, participants completed two tasks that served as implicit measures of state anthropomorphization, and two questionnaires that served as explicit measures of state anthropomorphization toward the robot. The two implicit measures were the joint Simon task and one-shot Dictator Game. Additionally, participants filled in a trait anthropomorphization questionnaire, to enable correction for baseline tendencies to anthropomorphize. The synchrony manipulation did not affect the joint Simon effect, although there was an effect on average reaction time (RT), where in the group in which the robot initiated the movement, RTs were slower when the human and robot moved non-synchronously. The Dictator Game offer and the state anthropomorphization questionnaires were not affected by the synchrony manipulation. There was, however, a positive correlation between current anthropomorphization of the robot and amount of money offered to it. Given that most measures were not systematically affected by our manipulation, it appears that either our design was suboptimal, or that synchronization does not affect the anthropomorphization of a robot.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

The Impact of Human–Robot Synchronization on Anthropomorphization

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, Sebanz et al ( 2003 ) concluded that other’s action is regarded as similar to ones own action and other’s task is regarded as own task, making the JSE a measure of the co-representation of other person’s action (Sebanz, et al, 2005 ). Based on studies showing that JSE-like compatibility effects are also established when one of the two human co-actors is replaced by an event-producing object (Dolk, et al, 2013 ; Puffe, Dittrich, & Klauer, 2017 ; Stenzel & Liepelt, 2016 ), for instance a puppet (Müller, et al, 2011 ) or a humanoid robot (Stenzel et al, 2012 ; Stenzel, Chinellato, del Pobil, Lappe, & Liepelt, 2013 ), a sole mechanism of action co-representation accounting for the JSE and JSE-like effects has been questioned (Dolk, et al, 2011 , 2014 ; Klempova & Liepelt, 2016 ). Based on the theory of event coding (Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001 ), the referential coding account has been proposed for joint action (Dolk, et al, 2014 , 2013 ).…”

Section: The Joint Simon Effect As a Measure Of Bodily Self-other Integrationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metacontrol and joint action: how shared goals transfer from one task to another?

Liepelt

Raab

2020

Psychological Research

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In most of our daily activities and in team sports, we interact with other individuals and do not act in isolation. Using a social variant of the standard two-choice Simon task, this study aims to test if competitive/cooperative processing modes (i.e., metacontrol states) change the degree of bodily self-other integration between two persons in joint action. In addition, and more exploratory the study tested if this effect depends on a shared group experience with the partner. Two participants shared a visual Simon task, so that each person basically performed complementary parts of the task, which transfers the paradigm into a go/no-go Simon task for each person. Before running this joint Simon task, we set both participants either in a competitive or a cooperative control state by means of a dyadic game, a manipulation aimed at testing possible goal transfer across tasks. We found significant joint Simon effects for participants who were in a competitive state and for participants who were in a cooperative state. The joint Simon effect for participants being in a competitive state was significantly smaller than for participants being in a cooperative state. When experiencing the goal induction together with the partner, the joint Simon effect was significantly decreased as when the induction was performed alone. Both effects (metacontrol state induction and shared experience) seem to be statistically independent of each other. In line with predictions of metacontrol state theory, our study indicated that abstract cognitive goal states can be transferred from one task to another task, able to affect the degree of bodily self-other integration across different task situations.

show abstract

“…The social Simon effect varies in strength, partly due to the relatively small samples (usually around 20, with the highest N being 48 to our knowledge; Stenzel et al 2013 ) that have been used in earlier work (Dolk et al 2011 ; Ruys and Aarts 2010 ; Sebanz et al 2003 ; Vlainic et al 2010 ). Another reason for the variation in the strength of the social Simon effect pertains to the observation that the effect depends on contextual as well as individual differences (Aron et al 1992 ; Colzato et al 2012a , b , 2013 ; Decety and Sommerville 2003 ; Humphreys and Bedford 2011 ; Müller et al 2011 ; Slotter and Gardner 2009 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Individual differences in action co-representation: not personal distress or subclinical psychotic experiences but sex composition modulates joint action performance

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Successful social interaction requires the ability to integrate as well as distinguish own and others’ actions. Normally, the integration and distinction of self and other are a well-balanced process, occurring without much effort or conscious attention. However, not everyone is blessed with the ability to balance self–other distinction and integration, resulting in personal distress in reaction to other people’s emotions or even a loss of self [e.g., in (subclinical) psychosis]. Previous research has demonstrated that the integration and distinction of others’ actions cause interference with one’s own action performance (commonly assessed with a social Simon task). The present study had two goals. First, as previous studies on the social Simon effect employed relatively small samples (N < 50 per test), we aimed for a sample size that allowed us to test the robustness of the action interference effect. Second, we tested to what extent action interference reflects individual differences in traits related to self–other distinction (i.e., personal distress in reaction to other people’s emotions and subclinical psychotic symptoms). Based on a questionnaire study among a large sample (N = 745), we selected a subsample (N = 130) of participants scoring low, average, or high on subclinical psychotic symptoms, or on personal distress. The selected participants performed a social Simon task. Results showed a robust social Simon effect, regardless of individual differences in personal distress or subclinical psychotic symptoms. However, exploratory analyses revealed that the sex composition of interaction pairs modulated social Simon effects. Possible explanations for these findings are discussed.

show abstract

How Deeply Do We Include Robotic Agents in the Self?

Cited by 8 publications

References 25 publications

The Impact of Human–Robot Synchronization on Anthropomorphization

The Impact of Human–Robot Synchronization on Anthropomorphization

Metacontrol and joint action: how shared goals transfer from one task to another?

Individual differences in action co-representation: not personal distress or subclinical psychotic experiences but sex composition modulates joint action performance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About