Of robots and robotkind: Extending intergroup contact theory to social machines

Human-Social Robot Interaction, Anthropomorphism And Ontological Boundary Problem In Education

“…Beran et al (2011) emphasized that the distinction between biological and technological nature has become more uncertain as robots with strong anthropomorphic features are produced, and reported that as robots became more popular and child-robot interaction increased, the standards for animate and inanimate minds could be altered and reorganized. Haggadone et al (2021) emphasized the significance of contact with and exposure to robots. In a study conducted by Jong et al ( 2021) with 570 8-9 years old children, 82% of the children intended to adopt domestic robots and one of the reasons for which could be the early exposure of the children to technologies.…”

“…Although anthropomorphism literature demonstrated that this trend is universal, studies reported that not everyone anthropomorphizes robots at the same degree and anthropomorphism is affected by age, gender, personality, prior experiences (exposure to robots) and culture Festerling and Siraj, 2021;Haggadone et al, 2021;Oranç and Küntay, 2020;Zlotowski, 2015). Younger individuals (Manzi et al, 2020), women (van den Berghe et al, 2020, easterners (Kaplan, 2004), and individuals who feel lonely tend to anthropomorphize more (Shin & Kim, 2020).…”

“…Although children knew that robots were not alive or eat or drink, they attributed psychological characteristics such as emotions or thoughts to robots (Jipson, 2016). According to Haggadone et al (2021), increasing evidence demonstrated that humans perceived robots as a different species. In a recent study, Guzman (2020) reported that there were five ontological boundaries between humans and computers: origin of existence, autonomy, emotion, intelligence and communication.…”

The use of artificial intelligence in mental health services in Turkey: What do mental health professionals think?

“…The ontological boundary problem further complicates the interaction between humans and AI technologies like social robots and digital assistants (Gültekin, 2022). Robots with humanoid features may lead users to perceive them as a new ontological category (Kahn & Shen, 2017;Pradhan et al, 2019;Tong et al, 2022), leading to misconceptions about cognitive and social attachment or isolation (Festerling & Siraj, 2021;Haggadone et al, 2021;Serholt et al, 2017;Sharkey, 2016). While AI can save time in diagnosis, offer personalized treatment and more accurate medical decisions in other health services such as pathology, radiology, surgery, dermatology, and ophthalmology, there are still concerns about privacy, confidentiality, stigmatization, and the possibility of wrong diagnosis and unemployment in health sector (Al-Medfa et al, 2023;Güvercin, 2020).…”

“…To facilitate meaningful interaction between AI and humans, AI systems must be designed to resemble humans (Duffy, 2003;Fong, 2003). As the resemblance between humans and machines increases, humans tend to attribute human-like characteristics to machines (de Visser, 2016), blurring the ontological boundaries between humans and machines (Gültekin, 2022;Guzman, 2020;Haggadone et al, 2021). Some studies indicate that children establish a new ontological status, placing social robots between humans and machines (Kahn et al, 2012;Severson & Carlson, 2010).…”