Don’t overthink: fast decision making combined with behavior variability perceived as more human-like

Marchesi, Serena; Perez-Osorio, Jairo; Tommaso, Davide De; Wykowska, Agnieszka

doi:10.1109/ro-man47096.2020.9223522

Cited by 16 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the name suggests, it aims to confirm the model under study (Tabri & Elliott, 2012a;Wood, 2008;Worthington & Whittaker, 2006). In addition, we tested the external validity of the scale based on the link between mentalization in HRI and attitude 5 toward robots (Marchesi et al, 2020).…”

Section: Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Intentional Stance Test-2: how to measure the tendency to adopt intentional stance towards robots.

Spatola¹,

Marchesi²,

Wykowska³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In human-robot interactions, people tend to attribute them mental states such as intentionality to make sense of their behaviour:the intentional stance. These inferences deeply influence how one will consider, engage and behave towards robots. However,people highly differ in their likelihood to adopt this intentional stance. Therefore it seems crucial to assess these interindividualdifferences to better evaluate and understand human-robot interactions. In two studies we developed and validated the structureof a task aiming at evaluating to what extent people adopt the intentional stance toward robots. The method consists in a taskthat probes participants’ stance by requiring them to choose the likelihood of an explanation (mentalistic vs. mechanistic) ofbehaviour of a robot depicted in a naturalistic scenario. Results showed a reliable psychometric structure of the present task toevaluate the mentalistic bias of participants as a proxy of the intentional stance. We further discuss the importance of consideringthese interindividual differences in human-robot interactions studies and social robotics

show abstract

Section: Study 2: Confirmatory Factor Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…People also differ in their expectations toward robots (Marchesi et al, 2020, Perez-Osorio et al, 2019 and tendency to anthropomorphize (Spatola, et al, 2019). Finally, culture is thought to be a central moderator (Lim, et al, 2020).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Intentional Stance Test-2: how to measure the tendency to adopt intentional stance towards robots.

Spatola¹,

Marchesi²,

Wykowska³

2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Social robots' influence on people's decisions is usually determined by the robot's available and related social cues, as well as people's expectations of the robot (58). A recent study (31) found that the behaviour of a social robot that demonstrates a more decisive behaviour (with minimal cues of hesitant behaviour) is evaluated as more mentalistic (vs. mechanistic), compared to a social robot that demonstrates a more hesitant behaviour. Using prisoner's dilemma games, another study established that people have a strong reciprocal tendency to social robots which might even surpass the influence of the reward value of their decisions (22).…”

Section: Fallacious Artificial Agentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions with fallacious robots

Polakow¹,

Laban²,

Teodorescu³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The role of social robots as advisors for decision making is investigated. We examined how robot advisors, one with logical reasoning and one with cognitive fallacies, affected participants' decision making under different contexts. The participants were asked to make multiple decisions, while advice from both robots interleaved the decision making process. Participants had to choose which robot they agreed with, and in the end of the scenario, rank the possible options presented to them. After the interaction, participants were asked to assign roles to the robots, e.g. detective, bartender. Our results show that the robots had an effect on the participants' responses, wherein participants changed their decisions based on the robot they agreed with more. Moreover, the context, presented as two different scenarios, also had an effect on preferred robots, wherein an art auction scenario resulted in significantly increased agreement with the fallacious robot, whereas a detective scenario did not. Finally, personality traits, e.g. agreeableness and neuroticism, and attitudes towards robots, had an impact on which robot was assigned to these roles. Taken together, the results presented here shows that social robot's effects on participants' decision making are a complex interaction between context, robots' cognitive fallacies and participants' attitudes and personalities, and could not be considered as a single psychological construct.

show abstract

“…Arguably, the attribution of human-like characteristics activates the general knowledge we have about humans [14; 15; 19] and the activation of neural representation related to the perception of other humans [20; 21; 22]. For example, factors like appearance [23], social gaze [24; 25], expectations and individual differences [26; 27], variability of behavior [28], and perception of human likeness [29], might also impact the level of attributed anthropomorphism and therefore help to induce the adoption of the intentional stance towards a humanoid robot. Finally, the adoption of intentional stance and anthropomorphic attributions may be influenced by individual characteristics (e.g., dispositional, developmental and cultural) and the context in which individuals is observing an agent [16].…”

Section: Adopting the Intentional Stance Towards Robots And The Intenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Human vs Humanoid. A behavioral investigation of the individual tendency to adopt the intentional stance

Marchesi¹,

Spatola²,

Perez-Osorio³

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Humans interpret and predict behavior of others with reference to mental states or, in other words, by means of adopting the intentional stance. How to measure the likelihood to adopt the Intentional Stance towards humanoid robots still remain to be addressed. The present study investigated to what extent individuals adopt the intentional stance in explaining the behavior of two agents (a humanoid robot and a human). The present paradigm required participants to judge mentalistic or mechanistic descriptions as fitting or not to the displayed behaviors. We were able to measure their acceptance/rejection rate (as an explicit measure) and their response time (as an implicit measure). In addition, we examined the relationship between adopting the intentional stance and anthropomorphism. Our results show that at the explicit level (acceptance/rejection of the descriptions), participants are more likely to use mentalistic (compared to mechanistic) descriptions to explain other humans’ behavior. Conversely, when it comes to a humanoid robot, they are more likely to choose mechanistic descriptions. Interestingly, at the implicit level (response times), while for the human agent we found faster response time for the mentalistic descriptions, we found no difference in response times associated with the robotic agent. Furthermore, cluster analysis on the individual differences in anthropomorphism revealed that participants with a high tendency to anthropomorphize tend to accept faster the mentalistic description. In the light of these results, we argue that, at the implicit level, both stances are comparable in terms of “the best fit” to explain the behavior of a humanoid robot. Moreover, we argue that the decisional process on which stance is best to adopt towards a humanoid robot is influenced by individual differences of the observers, such as the tendency to anthropomorphize non-human agents.

show abstract

Don’t overthink: fast decision making combined with behavior variability perceived as more human-like

Cited by 16 publications

References 20 publications

The Intentional Stance Test-2: how to measure the tendency to adopt intentional stance towards robots.

The Intentional Stance Test-2: how to measure the tendency to adopt intentional stance towards robots.

Interactions with fallacious robots

Human vs Humanoid. A behavioral investigation of the individual tendency to adopt the intentional stance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About