Correction: Seeing Minds in Others – Can Agents with Robotic Appearance Have Human-Like Preferences?

Martini, Molly C.; González, Christian; Wiese, Eva

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0149766

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The Attribution of Mental States Questionnaire (AMS‐Q) measures the mental states attributed by the child to specific characters depicted by an image, here either a human or NAO robot (the human character was matched to the child's gender). The scale is an ad‐hoc questionnaire that was based on the questionnaire described in Martini et al (2016) and aims to assess children's perception of the partner (H or R) in mental terms. AMS‐Q has been used in previous works with children (Di Dio et al, 2018, 2019, 2020a, 2020b; Manzi et al, 2017, 2020c).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can a robot lie? Young children's understanding of intentionality beneath false statements

Peretti

Manzi

Dio

et al. 2023

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Including robots in children's lives calls for reflection on the psychological and moral aspects of such relationships, especially with respect to children's ability to differentiate intentional from unintentional false statements, that is, lies from mistakes. This ability calls for an understanding of an interlocutor's intentions. This study examined the ability of 5‐6‐year‐olds to recognize, and morally evaluate, lies and mistakes produced by a human as compared to a NAO robot, and to attribute relevant emotions to the deceived party. Irrespective of the agent, children had more difficulty in understanding mistakes than lies. In addition, they were disinclined to attribute a lie to the robot. Children's age and their understanding of intentionality were the strongest predictors of their performance on the lie‐mistake task. Children's Theory of Mind, but not their executive function skills, also correlated with their performance. Our findings suggest that, regardless of age, a robot is perceived as an intentional agent. Robot behaviour was more acceptable for children because his actions could be attributed to someone who programmed it to act in a specific way. Highlights The ability to recognize an intention to lie or not in different agents represents a significant developmental step. Children saw a human/robot making intentionally or unintentionally false statements, and understanding the mistake was more difficult than the lie. Robots may be associated with the human concept by younger children with important implications for use of cHRI in education.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can a robot lie? Young children's understanding of intentionality beneath false statements

Peretti

Manzi

Dio

et al. 2023

Infant and Child Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To check the social perception of our stimuli we used three different measures. The first was a questionnaire on mind perception with five items that had to be answered on a seven-point rating scale ranging from "definitely not alive" to "definitely alive" (Martini et al, 2016). Second, we used the Godspeed revised questionnaire (Ho and MacDorman, 2010).…”

Section: Additional Exploratory Variables For Task-related and Social...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Humans Can’t Resist Robot Eyes – Reflexive Cueing With Pseudo-Social Stimuli

Onnasch,

Kostadinova,

Schweidler

2022

Front. Robot. AI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Joint attention is a key mechanism for humans to coordinate their social behavior. Whether and how this mechanism can benefit the interaction with pseudo-social partners such as robots is not well understood. To investigate the potential use of robot eyes as pseudo-social cues that ease attentional shifts we conducted an online study using a modified spatial cueing paradigm. The cue was either a non-social (arrow), a pseudo-social (two versions of an abstract robot eye), or a social stimulus (photographed human eyes) that was presented either paired (e.g. two eyes) or single (e.g. one eye). The latter was varied to separate two assumed triggers of joint attention: the social nature of the stimulus, and the additional spatial information that is conveyed only by paired stimuli. Results support the assumption that pseudo-social stimuli, in our case abstract robot eyes, have the potential to facilitate human-robot interaction as they trigger reflexive cueing. To our surprise, actual social cues did not evoke reflexive shifts in attention. We suspect that the robot eyes elicited the desired effects because they were human-like enough while at the same time being much easier to perceive than human eyes, due to a design with strong contrasts and clean lines. Moreover, results indicate that for reflexive cueing it does not seem to make a difference if the stimulus is presented single or paired. This might be a first indicator that joint attention depends rather on the stimulus’ social nature or familiarity than its spatial expressiveness. Overall, the study suggests that using paired abstract robot eyes might be a good design practice for fostering a positive perception of a robot and to facilitate joint attention as a precursor for coordinated behavior.

show abstract

“…Despite this price difference, the effectiveness of humanoid and nonhumanoid solutions is similar, with instances in which the nonhumanoid robot outperforms the humanoid one (Aslam et al , 2016; Huang and Liu, 2022). Nevertheless, most of the time service and hospitality companies tend to invest in extremely expensive humanoid machines, because of the higher perceived agency associated with these technologies (Yam et al , 2021b; Martini et al , 2016), disregarding cheaper but equally performing non-humanoid, traditional self-service machines. Then one may question if it is possible to make consumers believe in the agency of the non-humanoid self-service machine while keeping the physical appearance of the technology intact.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…self-check-out machines) to humanoid service robots (Pepper; Huang and Liu, 2022; Kim et al , 2021). Humanoid service robots are usually perceived as having more agency and autonomy (Yam et al , 2021b; Martini et al , 2016). However, previous literature has given less attention to the drivers of such perceived agency.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…robot) are perceived as having more agency and, therefore, are evaluated more positively than SSTs that have been framed as traditional automatic machines in case of service failure. Therefore, we fill a gap in the literature on agency attribution (Yam et al , 2021b; Martini et al , 2016) that has largely focused on the appearance of the machine (Broadbent et al , 2013; Fan et al , 2016; Müller et al , 2021; Song and Kim, 2022). Third, we aim to show that the positive effect of anthropomorphic framing on agency perception and SSTs evaluation holds in different contexts and for different interactions with the machine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Call it robot: anthropomorphic framing and failure of self-service technologies

Barone,

Stagno,

Donato

2023

JSM

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to test the effect that anthropomorphic framing (i.e. robot vs automatic machine) has on consumers’ responses in case of service failure. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that consumers hold an unconscious association between the word “robot” and agency and that the higher agency attributed to self-service machines framed as robots (vs automatic machines) leads, in turn, to a more positive service evaluation in case of service failure. Design/methodology/approach The authors have conducted four experimental studies to test the framework presented in this paper. In Studies 1a and 1b, the authors used an Implicit Association Test to test for the unconscious association held by consumers about robots as being intelligent machines (i.e. agency). In Studies 2 and 3, the authors tested the effect that framing technology as robots (vs automatic machines) has on consumers’ responses to service failure using two online experiments across different consumption contexts (hotel, restaurant) and using different dependent variables (service evaluation, satisfaction and word-of-mouth). Findings The authors show that consumers evaluate more positively a service failure involving a self-service technology framed as a robot rather than one framed as an automatic machine. They provide evidence that this effect is driven by higher perceptions of agency and that the association between technology and agency held by consumers is an unconscious one. Originality/value This paper investigates a novel driver of consumers’ perception of agency of technology, namely, how the technology is framed. Moreover, this study sheds light on consumers’ responses to technology’s service failure.

show abstract

Correction: Seeing Minds in Others – Can Agents with Robotic Appearance Have Human-Like Preferences?

Cited by 8 publications

References 1 publication

Can a robot lie? Young children's understanding of intentionality beneath false statements

Can a robot lie? Young children's understanding of intentionality beneath false statements

Humans Can’t Resist Robot Eyes – Reflexive Cueing With Pseudo-Social Stimuli

Call it robot: anthropomorphic framing and failure of self-service technologies

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About