Gaming with Mr. Slot or Gaming the Slot Machine? Power, Anthropomorphism, and Risk Perception

Abstract

We propose that risk perceptions are systematically influenced by anthropomorphism. Anthropomorphism effects, however, are moderated by the individual’s feelings of social power. People with low power perceive higher risk in playing a slot machine (study 1) and in getting skin cancer (study 2) when the risk-bearing entities (the slot machine and skin cancer) are highly anthropomorphized. In contrast, those with high power perceive greater risk when the entities are less anthropomorphized. We hypothesize these effects occur because those with high (low) power perceived a greater (lesser) degree of control over the anthropomorphized entity. In study 3, we investigate the reverse effect that higher perceived risk may increase anthropomorphism for people with low power but decrease anthropomorphism for people with high power.

Mindless Robots get Bullied

“…To manipulate dehumanisation, a feeling of power is primed in participants, as this manipulates dehumanisation tendencies [20] but not anthropomorphism [28]. Both the use of a human voice [14] and the inclusion of social cues through movement [43] have been shown to increase perceived anthropomorphism of a robot.…”

Interacting Like Humans? Understanding the Effect of Anthropomorphism on Consumers Willingness to Pay in Online Auctions

“…Through anthropomorphism, consumers can develop a humanlike social relationship with brand mascot [46], although such a relationship is moderated by individual personality [44]. Consumers will develop more favorable attitudes towards the anthropomorphized brand [3,63], but an anthropomorphized brand will have a greater decrease in consumer attitude if the brand cannot consistently maintain its positive image [64].…”

Anthropomorphism in Advertising: The Effect of Anthropomorphic Product Demonstration on Consumer Purchase Intention

“…The power of familiarity in anthropomorphism (Guthrie, 1995) should be utilised in many advertising purposes, persuading product personality (Aaker, 1997;Aggarwal & McGill, 2012;Folse, Netemeyer, & Burton, 2012), product liking (Aggarwal & McGill 2007;Landwehr, McGill, & Herrmann, 2011), product risk (Kim & McGill, 2011), and product efficacy. The research question is to explain the efficacy of a product using human behaviour; it can be easier for consumers to understand and convince the perceived product efficacy.…”

“…The anthropomorphic appearance of a product, such as an apparent smile in the grill of a car or hand phone, led to increase the liking of that product (Aggarwal & McGill, 2007;Landwehr et al, 2011), reduce the desire to replace the product (Chandler & Schwarz, 2010), and affect consumers' risk perception (Kim & McGill, 2011). A variety of product design with a diverse specific emotion (Smith, 2008) and a various design of front fascia with the manipulation of baby schema (Miesler, 2011) have a positive effect on product evaluation.…”