Anthropomorphic Interactions with a Robot and Robot–like Agent

People’s physical embodiment and presence increase their salience and importance. We predicted people would anthropomorphize an embodied humanoid robot more than a robot–like agent, and a collocated more than a remote robot. A robot or robot–like agent interviewed participants about their health. Participants were either present with the robot/agent, or interacted remotely with the robot/agent projected life–size on a screen. Participants were more engaged, disclosed less undesirable behavior, and forgot more with the robot versus the agent. They ate less and anthropomorphized most with the collocated robot. Participants interacted socially and attempted conversational grounding with the robot/agent though aware it was a machine. Basic questions remain about how people resolve the ambiguity of interacting with a humanlike nonhuman. By virtue of our shared global fate and similar DNA, we humans increasingly appreciate our similarity to nature’s living things. At the same time, we want machines, animals, and plants to meet our needs. Both impulses perhaps motivate the increasing development of humanlike robots and software agents. In this article, we examine social context moderation of anthropometric interactions between people and humanlike machines. We studied whether an embodied humanlike robot would elicit stronger anthropomorphic interactions than would a software agent, and whether physical presence moderated this effect. At the outset, robots and agents differ from ordinary computer programs in that they have autonomy, interact with the environment, and initiate tasks (Franklin & Graesser, 1996). The marriage of artificial intelligence and computer science has made possible robots and agents with humanlike capabilities, such as lifelike gestures and speech. Typically, “robot” refers to a physically–embodied system whereas “agent” refers to a software system. Examples of humanlike robots are NASA’s Robonaut—a humanoid that can hand tools to an astronaut (robonaut.jsc.nasa.gov/robonaut.html), Honda’s Asimo, and Hiroshi Ishiguro’s

[1]  F. Heider,et al.  An experimental study of apparent behavior , 1944 .

[2]  D. Marlowe,et al.  A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology. , 1960, Journal of consulting psychology.

[3]  R. Zajonc SOCIAL FACILITATION. , 1965, Science.

[4]  H. H. Clark Psychology and language , 1977 .

[5]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

[6]  Bernard Guerin,et al.  Mere presence effects in humans: A review , 1986 .

[7]  Bernd H. Schmitt,et al.  Mere presence and social facilitation: One more time , 1986 .

[8]  P. Salovey,et al.  Perceived distributions of the characteristics of in-group and out-group members: empirical evidence and a computer simulation. , 1989, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[9]  Stephen J. Misovich,et al.  Effects of Disruption of Structure and Motion on Perceptions of Social Causality , 1992 .

[10]  S. Guthrie,et al.  Faces in the Clouds: A New Theory of Religion , 1994 .

[11]  Arthur C. Graesser,et al.  Is it an Agent, or Just a Program?: A Taxonomy for Autonomous Agents , 1996, ATAL.

[12]  F. Keil,et al.  Conceptualizing a Nonnatural Entity: Anthropomorphism in God Concepts , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  D. Gentner,et al.  Structure mapping in analogy and similarity. , 1997 .

[14]  Robert W. Mitchell,et al.  Anthropomorphism, anecdotes, and animals. , 1997 .

[15]  Linnda R. Caporael,et al.  Why anthropomorphize? Folk psychology and other stories , 1997 .

[16]  Lee Sproull,et al.  Cooperating with life-like interface agents , 1999 .

[17]  Patrice D. Tremoulet,et al.  Perceptual causality and animacy , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[18]  Jeroen Vaes,et al.  The Emotional Side of Prejudice: The Attribution of Secondary Emotions to Ingroups and Outgroups , 2000 .

[19]  C. Nass,et al.  Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[20]  D. Rakison,et al.  Developmental origin of the animate-inanimate distinction. , 2001, Psychological bulletin.

[21]  Futoshi Naya,et al.  Evaluation of Communication with Robot and Agent: Are Robots Better Social Actors than Agents? , 2001, IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction.

[22]  Brian Scassellati,et al.  Theory of Mind for a Humanoid Robot , 2002, Auton. Robots.

[23]  J. Panksepp Can anthropomorphic analyses of separation cries in other animals inform us about the emotional nature of social loss in humans? Comment on Blumberg and Sokoloff (2001). , 2003, Psychological review.

[24]  Frank Biocca,et al.  The Effect of the Agency and Anthropomorphism on Users' Sense of Telepresence, Copresence, and Social Presence in Virtual Environments , 2003, Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments.

[25]  D. Ames,et al.  Inside the mind reader's tool kit: projection and stereotyping in mental state inference. , 2004, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[26]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot , 2005, ROMAN 2005. IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2005..

[27]  Fiorella de Rosis,et al.  Evaluating a realistic agent in an advice-giving task , 2005, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[28]  S. Ueno,et al.  Magnetoencephalographic measurements during two types of mental rotations of three-dimensional objects , 2005, INTERMAG Asia 2005. Digests of the IEEE International Magnetics Conference, 2005..

[29]  J. Bailenson,et al.  Digital Chameleons , 2005, Psychological science.

[30]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  Human Mental Models of Humanoid Robots , 2005, Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation.

[31]  Yaacov Trope,et al.  Transcending the "here": the effect of spatial distance on social judgment. , 2006, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[32]  Susan R. Fussell,et al.  Effects of adaptive robot dialogue on information exchange and social relations , 2006, HRI '06.

[33]  Sara Kiesler,et al.  Relationship effects in psychological explanations of nonhuman behavior , 2006 .

[34]  Khalil Sima'an,et al.  Wired for Speech: How Voice Activates and Advances the Human-Computer Relationship , 2006, Computational Linguistics.

[35]  Sara B. Kiesler,et al.  The advisor robot: tracing people's mental model from a robot's physical attributes , 2006, HRI '06.

[36]  Jeremy N. Bailenson,et al.  A meta-analysis of the impact of the inclusion and realism of human-like faces on user experiences in interfaces , 2007, CHI.

[37]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  WHEN WE NEED A HUMAN: MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ANTHROPOMORPHISM , 2008 .

[38]  Eileen Crist,et al.  Images Of Animals: Anthropomorphism and Animal Mind , 2010 .

[39]  IEEE Transactions on Magnetics , 2022 .