The interactive effects of robot anthropomorphism and robot ability on perceived threat and support for robotics research

The present research examines how a robot's physical anthropomorphism interacts with perceived ability of robots to impact the level of realistic and identity threat that people perceive from robots and how it affects their support for robotics research. Experimental data revealed that participants perceived robots to be significantly more threatening to humans after watching a video of an android that could allegedly outperform humans on various physical and mental tasks relative to a humanoid robot that could do the same. However, when participants were not provided with information about a new generation of robots' ability relative to humans, then no significant differences were found in perceived threat following exposure to either the android or humanoid robots. Similarly, participants also expressed less support for robotics research after seeing an android relative to a humanoid robot outperform humans. However, when provided with no information about robots' ability relative to humans, then participants showed marginally decreased support for robotics research following exposure to the humanoid relative to the android robot. Taken together, these findings suggest that very humanlike robots can not only be perceived as a realistic threat to human jobs, safety, and resources, but can also be seen as a threat to human identity and uniqueness, especially if such robots also outperform humans. We also demonstrate the potential downside of such robots to the public's willingness to support and fund robotics research.

[1]  K. Yogeeswaran,et al.  A new threat in the air: Macroeconomic threat increases prejudice against Asian Americans , 2011 .

[2]  N. Dasgupta,et al.  The devil is in the details: abstract versus concrete construals of multiculturalism differentially impact intergroup relations. , 2014, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[3]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Preliminary results: Humans find emotive non-anthropomorphic robots more calming , 2009, 2009 4th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[4]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  The thing that should not be: predictive coding and the uncanny valley in perceiving human and humanoid robot actions , 2011, Social cognitive and affective neuroscience.

[5]  Himalaya Patel,et al.  The uncanny valley does not interfere with level 1 visual perspective taking , 2013, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[6]  Aaron Powers,et al.  Matching robot appearance and behavior to tasks to improve human-robot cooperation , 2003, The 12th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication, 2003. Proceedings. ROMAN 2003..

[7]  Amy J. C. Cuddy,et al.  When Being a Model Minority Is Good . . . and Bad: Realistic Threat Explains Negativity Toward Asian Americans , 2008, Personality & social psychology bulletin.

[8]  P. Aggarwal,et al.  Is That Car Smiling at Me? Schema Congruity as a Basis for Evaluating Anthropomorphized Products , 2007 .

[9]  Mark Rubin,et al.  Intergroup bias. , 2002, Annual review of psychology.

[10]  P. Rochat,et al.  The Uncanny Valley: Existence and Explanations , 2015 .

[11]  Pei-Luen Patrick Rau,et al.  When in Rome: The role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations , 2010, 2010 5th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[12]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  How design characteristics of robots determine evaluation and uncanny valley related responses , 2014, Comput. Hum. Behav..

[13]  Michael Cole,et al.  Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. , 1975 .

[14]  Michael A. Goodrich,et al.  Detailed requirements for robots in autism therapy , 2010, 2010 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics.

[15]  P. Hinds,et al.  When in Rome: the role of culture & context in adherence to robot recommendations , 2010, HRI 2010.

[16]  Manja Lohse,et al.  Bridging the gap between users' expectations and system evaluations , 2011, 2011 RO-MAN.

[17]  R. Spears,et al.  Distinctiveness and Definition of Collective Self: A Tripartite Model , 2002 .

[18]  J. Kätsyri,et al.  A review of empirical evidence on different uncanny valley hypotheses: support for perceptual mismatch as one road to the valley of eeriness , 2015, Front. Psychol..

[19]  Walter G. Stephan,et al.  Prejudice toward immigrants. , 1999 .

[20]  O. J. Harvey,et al.  Intergroup Conflict And Cooperation: The Robbers Cave Experiment , 2013 .

[21]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Is The Uncanny Valley An Uncanny Cliff? , 2007, RO-MAN 2007 - The 16th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

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

[23]  Nicole C. Krämer,et al.  Individuals’ Evaluations of and Attitudes Towards Potentially Uncanny Robots , 2015, International Journal of Social Robotics.

[24]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  The influence of robot anthropomorphism on the feelings of embarrassment when interacting with robots , 2010, Paladyn J. Behav. Robotics.

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

[26]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Using socially assistive robotics to augment motor task performance in individuals post-stroke , 2011, 2011 IEEE/RSJ International Conference on Intelligent Robots and Systems.

[27]  Robin R. Murphy,et al.  Introduction to the Special Issue on Human-Robot Interaction , 2004, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C.

[28]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  Who like androids more: Japanese or US Americans? , 2008, RO-MAN 2008 - The 17th IEEE International Symposium on Robot and Human Interactive Communication.

[29]  Peter Robinson,et al.  Empathizing with robots: Fellow feeling along the anthropomorphic spectrum , 2009, 2009 3rd International Conference on Affective Computing and Intelligent Interaction and Workshops.

[30]  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).

[31]  S. Gaertner,et al.  Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: a meta-analytic review. , 2006, Personality and social psychology review : an official journal of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

[32]  K. MacDorman,et al.  Reducing consistency in human realism increases the uncanny valley effect; increasing category uncertainty does not , 2016, Cognition.

[33]  C. Bartneck,et al.  More human than human: does the uncanny curve really matter? , 2013, HRI 2013.

[34]  Brian A. Nosek,et al.  Recommendations for Increasing Replicability in Psychology † , 2013 .

[35]  N. Dasgupta,et al.  A new American dilemma? The effect of ethnic identification and public service on the national inclusion of ethnic minorities , 2012 .

[36]  Jessie Y. C. Chen,et al.  A Meta-Analysis of Factors Affecting Trust in Human-Robot Interaction , 2011, Hum. Factors.

[37]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Automated detection and classification of positive vs. negative robot interactions with children with autism using distance-based features , 2011, 2011 6th ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[38]  Maja J. Mataric,et al.  Using Socially Assistive Human–Robot Interaction to Motivate Physical Exercise for Older Adults , 2012, Proceedings of the IEEE.

[39]  Kerstin Dautenhahn,et al.  Sharing Spaces with Robots in a Home Scenario - Anthropomorphic Attributions and their Effect on Proxemic Expectations and Evaluations in a Live HRI Trial , 2008, AAAI Fall Symposium: AI in Eldercare: New Solutions to Old Problems.

[40]  D. Wegner,et al.  Feeling robots and human zombies: Mind perception and the uncanny valley , 2012, Cognition.

[41]  Takayuki Kanda,et al.  Analysis of Humanoid Appearances in Human–Robot Interaction , 2005, IEEE Transactions on Robotics.

[42]  Jolanda Jetten,et al.  Defining dimensions of distinctiveness: Group variability makes a difference to differentiation , 1998 .

[43]  Christopher H. Bryant,et al.  Functional genomic hypothesis generation and experimentation by a robot scientist , 2004, Nature.

[44]  H. Tajfel,et al.  The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior. , 2004 .

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

[46]  Heloir,et al.  The Uncanny Valley , 2019, The Animation Studies Reader.

[47]  A. Manstead,et al.  Distinctiveness threat and prototypicality : combined effects on intergroup discrimination and collective self-esteem , 1997 .

[48]  Katsumi Watanabe,et al.  Perception of an Android Robot in Japan and Australia: A Cross-Cultural Comparison , 2014, ICSR.

[49]  Allison Sauppé,et al.  The Social Impact of a Robot Co-Worker in Industrial Settings , 2015, CHI.

[50]  Christoph Bartneck,et al.  To kill a mockingbird robot , 2007, 2007 2nd ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI).

[51]  H. Ishiguro,et al.  The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research , 2006 .

[52]  Dylan F. Glas,et al.  Persistence of the uncanny valley: the influence of repeated interactions and a robot's attitude on its perception , 2015, Front. Psychol..