Projecting Life Onto Robots: The Effects of Cultural Factors and Design Type on Multi-Level Evaluations of Robot Anthropomorphism

Existing research has shown that people often attribute human-like attributes to robots, which is generally known as the “anthropomorphism” phenomenon. We use the notion of “multi-dimensional anthropomorphism,” to perform a more fine-grained analysis of anthropomorphism in relation to robots in terms of several dimensions (e.g., uniquely and typically human, being alive or not, having emotions or not). Additionally, we expand on existing work, which has mostly focused on organism-based robot designs, by including object-based robot designs in our study of robot anthropomorphism. The results of an online survey study with 775 U.S. (393) and Chinese (382) participants show how people's personal characteristics (e.g., nationality) affect their perceptions of the anthropomorphism of robots, and how such perceptions differ between organism- and object-based robot designs. The effect on people's multi-dimensional anthropomorphism perceptions suggests new design implications for robotic technologies.

[1]  Karl F. MacDorman,et al.  Does Japan really have robot mania? Comparing attitudes by implicit and explicit measures , 2008, AI & SOCIETY.

[2]  Michio Okada,et al.  Concepts and Applications of Human-Dependent Robots , 2014, HCI.

[3]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  All robots are not created equal: the design and perception of humanoid robot heads , 2002, DIS '02.

[4]  Selma,et al.  Emotion in robot cultures Cultural models of affect in social robot design , 2010 .

[5]  Francesco Mondada,et al.  Interactive Mobile Robotic Drinking Glasses , 2008, DARS.

[6]  Frédéric Kaplan,et al.  Who is Afraid of the Humanoid? Investigating Cultural Differences in the Acceptance of Robots , 2004, Int. J. Humanoid Robotics.

[7]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Designing robots with movement in mind , 2014, Journal of Human-Robot Interaction.

[8]  Fabian Hemmert,et al.  Animate mobiles: proxemically reactive posture actuation as a means of relational interaction with mobile phones , 2013, TEI '13.

[9]  Cynthia Breazeal,et al.  Toward sociable robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[10]  Vanessa Evers,et al.  Measuring acceptance of an assistive social robot: a suggested toolkit , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[11]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Rabble of Robots Effects: Number and Type of Robots Modulates Attitudes, Emotions, and Stereotypes , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  The Hug: an exploration of robotic form for intimate communication , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003..

[13]  Brian R. Duffy,et al.  Anthropomorphism and the social robot , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[14]  N. Epley,et al.  The mind in the machine: Anthropomorphism increases trust in an autonomous vehicle , 2014 .

[15]  Gerhard Sagerer,et al.  Understanding social robots: A user study on anthropomorphism , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[16]  Henrik I. Christensen,et al.  "My Roomba Is Rambo": Intimate Home Appliances , 2007, UbiComp.

[17]  Jodi Forlizzi,et al.  Service robots in the domestic environment: a study of the roomba vacuum in the home , 2006, HRI '06.

[18]  Illah R. Nourbakhsh,et al.  A survey of socially interactive robots , 2003, Robotics Auton. Syst..

[19]  N. Haslam,et al.  Attributing and denying humanness to others , 2008 .

[20]  Fabian Hemmert,et al.  Living interfaces: the thrifty faucet , 2009, TEI.

[21]  Friederike Eyssel,et al.  Effects of anticipated human-robot interaction and predictability of robot behavior on perceptions of anthropomorphism , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[22]  Cosima Wagner,et al.  ‘The Japanese way of robotics’: Interacting ‘naturally’ with robots as a national character? , 2009, RO-MAN 2009 - The 18th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[23]  Bradd Shore,et al.  Culture in Mind: Cognition, Culture, and the Problem of Meaning , 1996 .

[24]  Julia Fink,et al.  Anthropomorphism and Human Likeness in the Design of Robots and Human-Robot Interaction , 2012, ICSR.

[25]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Empathy: Interactions with Emotive Robotic Drawers , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[26]  Jaap Ham,et al.  Introducing a Rasch-Type Anthropomorphism Scale , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[27]  Tatsuya Nomura,et al.  Cultural Differences in Attitudes Towards Robots , 2005 .

[28]  Peter Robinson,et al.  How anthropomorphism affects empathy toward robots , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[29]  Dana Kulic,et al.  Measurement Instruments for the Anthropomorphism, Animacy, Likeability, Perceived Intelligence, and Perceived Safety of Robots , 2009, Int. J. Soc. Robotics.

[30]  Brian T. Gill,et al.  "Robovie, you'll have to go into the closet now": children's social and moral relationships with a humanoid robot. , 2012, Developmental psychology.

[31]  Sonya S. Kwak,et al.  The Effects of Organism- Versus Object-Based Robot Design Approaches on the Consumer Acceptance of Domestic Robots , 2017, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[32]  Anna Vallgårda.  PLANKS: a computational composite , 2008, NordiCHI.

[33]  Li Gong,et al.  How social is social responses to computers? The function of the degree of anthropomorphism in computer representations , 2008, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[34]  J. Cacioppo,et al.  Who Sees Human? , 2010, Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science.

[35]  Jarmo Laaksolahti,et al.  Anthropomorphism - a Multi-Layered Phenomenon , 2000 .

[36]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Culturally Variable Preferences for Robot Design and Use in South Korea, Turkey, and the United States , 2014, 2014 9th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[37]  Wendy Ju,et al.  Mechanical Ottoman: How Robotic Furniture Offers and Withdraws Support , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[38]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Anthropomorphism: Opportunities and Challenges in Human–Robot Interaction , 2014, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[39]  Michael Schmitz,et al.  Concepts for life-like interactive objects , 2010, TEI.

[40]  James Everett Young,et al.  Poor Thing! Would You Feel Sorry for a Simulated Robot? A comparison of empathy toward a physical and a simulated robot , 2015, 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[41]  Hirotaka Osawa,et al.  Anthropomorphization Framework for Human-Object Communication , 2007, J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Informatics.

[42]  Selma Sabanovic,et al.  Cultural design of domestic robots: A study of user expectations in Korea and the United States , 2012, 2012 IEEE RO-MAN: The 21st IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.