One day in the future, robots will become a normal feature of everyday life and effective human-robotic partnerships will be important. The purpose of the present study was to identify the impact certain social design elements have on likability and fear in human-robot interactions through examination of human-like feminine, human-like masculine, human-like gender-neutral, and machine-like robots. The current study examined college students at a small private university. Analyses revealed that robot appearance did influence likability, with the human-like gender-neutral robot liked most by participants. Robot appearance also played a role in shaping evaluations of fear, with the human-like feminine robot feared more than the human-like gender-neutral and machine-like robots, but no more than the human-like masculine robot. The discussion centers on the importance of studying likability and fear in the context of HRI.
References
1.
BarghJ. A. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case against controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 361-382). New York: Guilford.
2.
BrewerM. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In SrullT. K.WyerR. J. (Eds.), Advances in social cognition, volume 1: A dual process model of impression formation (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
3.
ByrneD. (1971). The Attraction Paradigm. New York: Academic Press.
EllisH.LewisM. (2001). Capgras delusion: A window on face recognition. Trends in Cognitive Science, 5(4), 149-156.
6.
EysselF.HegelF. (2012). (S)he’s got the look: Gender stereotyping of robots. Journal of Applied Psychology, 42(9), 2213-2230.
7.
FioreS. M.WiltshireT. J.LobatoE. J. C.JentschF. G.HuangW. H.AxelrodB. (2013). Towards understanding social cues and signals in human-robot interaction: effects of robot gaze and proxemics behavior. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 859.
8.
HindsP. J.RobertsT. L.JonesH. (2004). Whose job is it anyway? A study of human-robot interaction in a collaborative task. Human- Computer Interaction, 19, 151-181.
9.
InfanteD. A.RancerA. S.WomackD. F. (1990). Building Communication Theory. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
10.
KieslerS.GoetzJ. (2002). Mental models of robotic assistants. Proceedings of CHI ’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 576-577. ACM. doi:10.1145/506443.506491
11.
LeeS. L.KieslerS.LauI. Y.ChiuC. Y. (2005). Human mental models of humanoid robots. Proceedings of the 2005 IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation (pp. 2767-2772). IEEE.
12.
MacDormanK. F.IshiguroH. (2006). The uncanny advantage of using androids in cognitive and social science research. Interaction Studies, 7(3), 297-337.
13.
MacDormanK. F.GreenR. D.HoC. C.KochC. T. (2009). Too real for comfort? Uncanny responses to computer generated faces. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 695-710.
14.
MoriM. (1970). The uncanny valley. Energy, 7(4), 33-35.
15.
NassC.LeeK. M. (2001). Does computer-synthesized speech manifest personality? Experimental tests of recognition, similarity-attraction, and consistency-attraction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 7(3), 171-181.
16.
NassC.MoonY.GreenN. (1997). Are machines gender neutral? Gender-stereotypic responses to computers with voices. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 864-876.
17.
NassC.SteuerJ.TauberE. R. (1994). Computers are social actors. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in Computing Systems (pp. 72-78). ACM.
18.
NiculescuA.van DijkB.NijholtA.LiH.SeeS. L. (2012). Making social robots more attractive: The effects of voice pitch, humor and empathy. International Journal of Social Robotics, 5(2), 171-191.
19.
PowersA.KieslerS. (2006). The advisor robot: Tracing people’s mental model from a robot’s physical attributes. Proceedings of the 1st ACM SIGCHI/SIGART Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (pp. 218-225). ACM.
20.
PowersA.KramerA. D.LimS.KuoJ.LeeS. L.KieslerS. (2005). Eliciting information from people with a gendered humanoid robot. Proceedings of the 14th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Interactive Communication (pp. 158-163). IEEE.
21.
QiuL.BenbasatI. (2005). Online consumer trust and live help interfaces: The effects of text-to-speech voice and three-dimensional avatars. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 19(1), 75-94.
22.
RameyC. H. (2005). The uncanny valley of similarities concerning abortion, baldness, heaps of sand, and humanlike robots. Proceedings of Views of the Uncanny Valley Workshop, IEEE-RAS International Conference on Humanoid Robots, (pp. 8-13).
23.
RauP.LiY.LiD. (2009). Effects of communication style and culture on ability to accept recommendations from robots. Computers in Human Behavior, 25(2), 587-595.
24.
RhodesG.ZebrowitzL. A. (Ed.), (2002). Facial attractiveness: Evolutionary, cognitive, and social perspectives. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.
25.
SteuerJ. (1995). Vividness and source of evaluation as determinants of social responses toward mediated representation of agency (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Stanford University, California.
26.
TurkleS. (1984). The second self: Computers and the human spirit. New York: Simon & Schuster.
27.
VanderborghtB.SimutR.SaldienJ.PopC.RusuA. S.PinteaS.LefeberD.DavidD. O. (2012). Using the social robot Probo as a social story telling agent for children with ASD. Interaction Studies, 13(3), 348-372.
28.
WartaS. F. (2015). I don’t always have positive attitudes, but when I do it is usually about a robot: Development of the Robot Perception Scale. Proceedings of the Twenty-Eighth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference (FLAIRS).
29.
WiltshireT. J.SnowS. L.LobatoE. J. C.FioreS. M. (2014). Leveraging social judgment theory to examine the relationship between social cues and signals in human-robot interactions. Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 1336-1340. Chicago, IL: SAGE Publications.
